Almost all EAs would generally rather donate to an organization than to an “EA emergency fund,” since the best opportunities to do good prima facie do not include giving money to other EAs (except in cases more like giving someone a grant, but we already have funds set up for grantmaking).
I think I disagree with one specific thing: we want people to take risks in their careers so that large amounts of “good” are created. But then how can we compensate those people taking risks that benefit others? I am therefore in favor of decoupling taking large charitable upside risky career moves with personal risk.
In other words:
In personal matters, you want to be conservative because 50 million do not make you 50 times happier than 1 million.
On altruistic matters, you should aim to be risky.
I think I disagree with one specific thing: we want people to take risks in their careers so that large amounts of “good” are created. But then how can we compensate those people taking risks that benefit others? I am therefore in favor of decoupling taking large charitable upside risky career moves with personal risk.
In other words:
In personal matters, you want to be conservative because 50 million do not make you 50 times happier than 1 million.
On altruistic matters, you should aim to be risky.
This fund could help bridge those different aims.